Opinion Is it time for Daniel Kerr to go back to the WAFL

[swannies]

No. The premise of this thread has nothing to do with 10 years of Kerr's previous playing history. This thread is about this season, nothing more. Re-read the opening post. No such indication that Kerr's previous years is included.

This is the original premise - May not be a popular opinion but IMO it's time for Kerr to go back to the WAFL to find some form. Hasn't been getting enough of the ball, rarely tackles, disposal efficiency has been average to below average, doesn’t take any marks, very little number of clearances so far this season and gets run down far too often.

I'll ask again, what criteria do you put on dropping a bona fide star, who has proven they can play, was brilliant in the finals last year, back to the magoos?

His second game was 26 posessions, does that constitute not getting enough of the ball? Don't tell me it was just Melbourne, because that rule must then apply to all players, so if the game doesn't count, you're willing to drop a player of 10 years service after just 2 bad games?

 

[tesseract]

You've explained yourself. Whether it amounts to "reason" is debateable.

Sure, Kerr has to prove himself "continuously" in he same way Judd does or Buddy does or, well you get he point. Once a bloke has as many runs on the board as Kerr does the fact you have already proven yourself does factor in.

Especially when the 2 poor games were entirely explicable. The other one was fine.

The premise of the OP and yourself is flawed and silly....

I agree that "once a bloke has as many runs on the board as Kerr does the fact you have already proven yourself does factor in." I've said as much already in this thread.

It's a subjective call as to what's an acceptable performance, and how long what's unacceptable is to be tolerated. Hence the thread.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

No. The premise of this thread has nothing to do with 10 years of Kerr's previous playing history. This thread is about this season, nothing more. Re-read the opening post. No such indication that Kerr's previous years is included.

May not have been in the OP but it's certainly the way the thread has gone.

Which makes perfect sense. You can't have a thread about dropping a player like Kerr and rule his previous seasons off-limits. You can argue about how much weight to give past form, but it's hardly irrelevant.

 

[swannies]

I agree that "once a bloke has as many runs on the board as Kerr does the fact you have already proven yourself does factor in." I've said as much already in this thread.

It's a subjective call as to what's an acceptable performance, and how long what's unacceptable is to be tolerated. Hence the thread.

But you don't think 2 weeks (discounting the Melbourne game), 1 week if you include the Melbourne game, is too little? Too premature? If he's taking the tagger and letting Scooter cut it up, that's invaluable too, isn't it. What many are/were saying is there are other factors to take into account, not pure stats.

Luckily Worsfold didn't agree with Lyyyynnchy.

 

[Scuderia]

YEAH..........................NAH!!! Been watching that goal again and again sexy as

Lady, you've sold me.

 

[tesseract]

This is the original premise - May not be a popular opinion but IMO it's time for Kerr to go back to the WAFL to find some form. Hasn't been getting enough of the ball, rarely tackles, disposal efficiency has been average to below average, doesn’t take any marks, very little number of clearances so far this season and gets run down far too often.

I'll ask again, what criteria do you put on dropping a bona fide star, who has proven they can play, was brilliant in the finals last year, back to the magoos?

His second game was 26 posessions, does that constitute not getting enough of the ball? Don't tell me it was just Melbourne, because that rule must then apply to all players, so if the game doesn't count, you're willing to drop a player of 10 years service after just 2 bad games?

I'm aware of the premise. The OP also included 3 games stats from this season, so that's all that's being discussed. Some wish to mistakenly include previous seasons feats to make their argument; this goes beyond the scope of the opening post.

Kerr's history gives him some grace, but as for drawing a line as to when Kerr should head back to the magoos, I couldn't be specific. It'd be easier to judge after the games have been played, so as to assess, not before with a hard and fast, set criteria.

No one said that Kerr didn't get enough of the ball. 26 possessions should be par for the course for Kerr. The OP reasoned other parts of Kerr's game that were insufficient.
Btw, I've given no criteria and have not said 2 games.

Btw, Fivey's picture is indicative of where I'm coming from.

 

[tesseract]

May not have been in the OP but it's certainly the way the thread has gone.

Which makes perfect sense. You can't have a thread about dropping a player like Kerr and rule his previous seasons off-limits. You can argue about how much weight to give past form, but it's hardly irrelevant.

Of course one can have such a thread. The OP sets the parameters for the discussion. Others have gone outside those parameters and then based on such invalid information, had a go at the OP. Kerr's history is irrelavant because it's inadmissible due to being outside the scope of the opening post.
Whether you agree or not with those parameters is irrelevant.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

This isn't a Royal Commission. If something is patently relevant to what is being discussed, you can't simply rule out any discussion of it because it wasn't in the original post.

The question is whether Kerr's early season form warranted a drop to the twos. All sorts of issues are going to be relevant to that - missed pre-season, team balance, his reputation and runs on the board. Just because it's not explicitly referred to in the OP it's off limits? That's a completely ridiculous suggestion, whether you're playing devil's advocate or not.

 

[tesseract]

But you don't think 2 weeks (discounting the Melbourne game), 1 week if you include the Melbourne game, is too little? Too premature? If he's taking the tagger and letting Scooter cut it up, that's invaluable too, isn't it. What many are/were saying is there are other factors to take into account, not pure stats.

Luckily Worsfold didn't agree with Lyyyynnchy.

Kerr taking the tagger and letting Scooter cut it up certainly is a positive. Such is a fair call and one that I agree with.

I've answered the first half of your post in another recent comment.

WC were fortunate that Kerr were included.

 

[GriddleCakes]

This just reminds me of the discussion a few years ago that he was passed it and we should trade him - to which Gerard Healy wisely stated, "Never get rid of talented players."

Last year Kerry was back to not quite his best but excellent footy. The same goes for this week. A few of us called it that tonight he would play a blinder and he did. He stands up when he needs to; form means nothing when you have the talent to overcome. You just need faith from your coaches and teammates.

 

[tesseract]

This isn't a Royal Commission. If something is patently relevant to what is being discussed, you can't simply rule out any discussion of it because it wasn't in the original post.

The question is whether Kerr's early season form warranted a drop to the twos. All sorts of issues are going to be relevant to that - missed pre-season, team balance, his reputation and runs on the board. Just because it's not explicitly referred to in the OP it's off limits? That's a completely ridiculous suggestion, whether you're playing devil's advocate or not.

Kerr's history isn't relevant to this thread. The OP didn't even hint at it. It's misplaced, and was brought in at the convenience of the naysayers as ammunition against the OP. History is off-topic.

The OP specifically listed this year's stats as the reason for wanting Kerr dropped, not anything from previous seasons. The OP would've included such reasoning from previous seasons as to why Kerr should be dropped if that's what he was getting at. What's ridiculous are attempts to change the parameters of the opening post to suit oneself.

 

[GriddleCakes]

This thread is becoming beyond a joke.

Close?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Kerr's history isn't relevant to this thread. The OP didn't even hint at it. It's misplaced, and was brought in at the convenience of the naysayers as ammunition against the OP. History is off-topic.

The OP specifically listed this year's stats as the reason for wanting Kerr dropped, not anything from previous seasons. The OP would've included such reasoning from previous seasons as to why Kerr should be dropped if that's what he was getting at. What's ridiculous are attempts to change the parameters of the opening post to suit oneself.

The OP didn't contain anything arguing against his own position.

So based on your previous post responding to Swannies, do you say that Kerr's role in the midfield, taking the number 1 tagger and clearing space for Shuey, Selwood, Masten etc is relevant at all to the thread? If so, perhaps you could point out where it arises in the OP.

 

[galen]

This thread is becoming beyond a joke.

Close?

I want to see the OP come back before this thread gets closed please, kind of as a closing comments. He started the ball rolling on this topic and should , you would think, have something to say after Kerrs performance.

 

[GriddleCakes]

I want to see the OP come back before this thread gets closed please, kind of as a closing comments. He started the ball rolling on this topic and should , you would think, have something to say after Kerrs performance.

I'm willing to hold out for that.

 

[tesseract]

The OP didn't contain anything arguing against his own position.

So based on your previous post responding to Swannies, do you say that Kerr's role in the midfield, taking the number 1 tagger and clearing space for Shuey, Selwood, Masten etc is relevant at all to the thread? If so, perhaps you could point out where it arises in the OP.

Kerr taking the tag away from Shuey, Selwood, Masten is relevant to this year, just as are the stats the OP provided. This issue doesn't drag up past positives to make a case against the OP.

 

[ndot]

this whole 'the OP didn't mention it so it's not a valid argument' argument is quite ludicrous.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Kerr taking the tag away from Shuey, Selwood, Masten is relevant to this year, just as are the stats the OP provided. This issue doesn't drag up past positives to make a case against the OP.

The fact that teams tag Kerr based on his past performance is relevant, but his past performance is not relevant?

You've gone past the point of playing devil's advocate, now you're just being ridiculous.

 

[Eagle87]

Kerr taking the tag away from Shuey, Selwood, Masten is relevant to this year, just as are the stats the OP provided. This issue doesn't drag up past positives to make a case against the OP.

Are you still being serious or just posting with a sly grin and while holding a fishing rod?

I mean seriously.

Your basic position now is that everything that occurred outside the first 3 games as specifically commented on by the OP is "inadmissible" and "not relevant" except when it's outside what the OP said but it's related to said 3 games. But when his lack of pre-season is mentioned, which directly affects those games you scream "irrelevant". When his injuries in game 1 and game 3 are mentioned, you ignore them.

Kerr is an awesome player with a stellar past record. That CANNOT be ignored when assessing his "poor games leeway", even moreso when one of the games wasn't poor!!

Your "26 possession should be par for the course for Kerr" also belies your own inability to apply your own ridiculous and illogical parameters. I mean why should "26 possession be par for the course for KERR"?

If 20 year old Joe Schmoe played an ordinary game in Round 1 on debut before being subbed off injured, then had 26 disposals as a starting mid in Round 2, we'd be hailing the arrival of a new gun....

Of course Kerr was simply "par for the course for Kerr" - that statement being based entirely on his reputation, which is of course based on his 10 year playing career. If you want to judge Kerr against his own standards "par for the course for KERR" then those standards are "admissible" in judging the question.

You just need to learn to give up when you are making a bit of a dick of yourself ...

 

[September_Glory]

How good was that 1-on-1 contest with Buddy on the HBF with the game on the line? I had a Fraser Gehrig flashback for a second there. Not to mention the big clearance he won when both he and Buddy were free floating around a throw-in on center wing. (Kerr crashed Cox's feet whilst Buddy hung back).

I've come to accept that Kerr can be Kerr about 1 in every 4 games.

And I'm fine with that.

I don't care how he performs vs. GWS, vs. Melbourne, vs. Richmond this week. Just as long as he doesn't pick up injuries. We just need him to play big in the big ones.

 

[Underdog]

I didn't think it was so hard to say "I was mistaken"...

 

[wce4premiership]

This isn't a Royal Commission. If something is patently relevant to what is being discussed, you can't simply rule out any discussion of it because it wasn't in the original post.

The question is whether Kerr's early season form warranted a drop to the twos. All sorts of issues are going to be relevant to that - missed pre-season, team balance, his reputation and runs on the board. Just because it's not explicitly referred to in the OP it's off limits? That's a completely ridiculous suggestion, whether you're playing devil's advocate or not.

This post should have ended the thread.

A separate thread needs to be made to discuss kerr's position in the team, where we can discuss every factor, rather than being restricted by some ridiculous claims that it's 'not relevant in this thread' (paraphrasing)

Clutching at straws to defend your position tesseract.

 

[QS]

If the thread was to stay strictly on topic, we'd have 13 pages of 'Yes, No Maybe' responses.
Ridiculous claim.

 

[pantskyle]

Hurn only had like 7 touches against the Hawks. I think he should have a spell in the WAFL.

 

[GriddleCakes]

Kennedy only kicked 1.2 and he didn't pass it to teammates some times. I think he should be given a spell in the WAFL.